We can argue and debate this for another hundred years but I personally do not see anything changing. One can also call ones Senators as this is a federal issue but somehow the judges will decide and they have already spoken. Until we change the Supreme Court Judges, nothing will likely change and we cannot change the judges by vote.

Just my 2 cents worth and i don't wanna start anything, nut I also heard that in the treaty they agreed to back in 1854 or 1862 or whatever it was, it was also stated that 3 or more native americans in a group constituted a war party and could be shot.. Hence if we have to follow their treaty are we allowed to REALLY follow it?

I have tried to learn as much about this issue and i have found out a few things. first, it is not an "anything goes" in the Ceded territory. It appears to be highly monitored by the tribes. second, it sounds like they have these rights at the pleasure of the president. thats the way i read it. i do not want our government to go back on its word, i just hope the tribes use good conservation and dont turn Mille lacs into Red Lake 2. still, i wonder if there is not a little "lets stick this to the white man" thinking behind this. i hope the fish and the treaty are not being used by the tribe to beat up the white man today for the sins of their fathers
i also dont consider people who are concerned about the health of the fisheries in the lakes in the ceded territory whiners.
lastly, isnt Mille lacs still considered a premeire walleye lake??? In fact, isnt it like number one?

Then Dont?

I agree with loonasea, if were gonna follow the treaty, then lets FOLLOW it!

The american indians are gonnna take the country back without firing a shot. One casino at a time.

No, they are just sticking with in their legal rights and privileges, like I do with my rights as an MN angler. Its what our courts gave the tribes and what our country gave to them in the treaty. I am sure there is a violator or two like there is with regular MN anglers, but in a whole I feel most stay with in their legal rights. Its kind of like a using the speed limits. Why drive 30 in a 55mph zone. I have the right to slow down and know there are some benefits to doing it, but most times I drive right at 55mph and across the board, there are some who will do 80mph in a 55mph.
.

If they can have there old treaty, why can't we have the old fishing regulations back, then we can all bleed this lakes dry. Then there won't be any fish for ether of us. If we have to adapt to lower fish limits and slots then they should also have to, it's up to the generations of today to manage the fishery for the children of tomorrow.

I would not say they have or will ever have that kind of power.

Shackbash, I do not understand your statement that this is a federal issue so contacting your rep's will not make a difference. You do know that we elect state AND federal pol's don't you? And the last time I checked we are still the "United States of America".

The one thing I do not want to do is make this a Native vs non native discussion because that is not what it really is. It should be a discussion of what is best for the lake and many, many people believe strongly that tribal netting is bad the the lake in the long run and they should have very right to express this opinion if they so wish with out being told your voice does not count so "shut up and live with it"

As for the Supreme court. The treaty decision was a 5/4 split decision so it was in no way a slam dunk. Also there is a different court today than then and I believe the present court would not come to the same decision as the last one.

Anyone can do a little checking and find out that treaty rights are being challenged all over the country right now and with some success I might add.

From what I have read, and I have read quite a few Treaties, the hope was for all people, regardless of stripe, to blend and unite. The treaties were designed as a relatively short term objective to prevent culture shock, a soft landing so to speak. I agree with Blarkey, why not go back to the days when there were no regulations at all? Well, the answer is obvious.

FG,

I did not say it will "not make a difference, I said:



To me it is kind of like going to Dairy Queen and asking for a Wopper. DQ can get you all kinds of burgers, but they can not furnish you with the Wopper .

The reason I say this is because at a state level, regulation adjustments possibly can be made in favor of the MN Angler. Given the recent years trend though with regulations (slot limits and such), you see which side gets the major tightening. MN anglers are a bigger crowd, so our regulations are going to be much more restrictive than the tribes regulations. Thrown in the treaty rights and that is where this stands.

Shackbash, I my completely disagree with how your minds works but I have to say I respect your opinions and always get a kick out of trying to get a handle around the meanings of your posts.

On a more important note. The lake is warming up! The sun and warmer weather is starting to make a difference. Get up here and start fishing everyone.

Then you don't understand treaties. They are negotiated in perpetuity. If you guys want to write congress to help make the world a better place, then writer to them about not allowing level 3 sex offenders to be released or something more worth while. you are beating a dead horse. It's time to move on.

Hey administrators, are you really going to allow the advocation of shooting Native Americans?

We did not just kick them off and take their land and we did not take away their hunting and gathering rights...if you have read any of the treaties..in most cases they were compinsated for their land (in some case more than once)...and in the case of the Mille Lacs the band agreed to and were compinsated to relinguise reservation territory...in exchange they had the option to relocate to the white earth res or they could stay and were given small parcels of land (which makes up the majority of the current reservation on the west and east sides) to live as long as they agreed to no uprisings towards white settlers...and they hunting and gather rights were not taken away...what has recently been in dispute is the manner in which they are allowed gather and hunt...they were always allowed to hunt and fish...the dispute is weather they could use gill nets to gather walleyes..